Gay men could be subject to five-year ban on blood donation

A public meeting yesterday discussed the possibility of a five-year deferral for gay and bisexual men donating blood, rather than a lifetime ban. The meeting, held by the independent Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs, was part of a new review on the long list of people excluded for life due to the danger of blood-borne diseases between transmitted. Currently, this includes men who have ever had sex with another man, people who have injected drugs, prostitutes and those who have ever had syphilis, hepatitis B or hepatitis C. Temporary exclusions include those who have visited certain parts of the world, or have had sex with someone from certain parts of the world. Yesterday's meeting heard that gay men who have not had sex with another man in the last five years could become eligible to donate blood.

[Ziggy on High]

I remember this same idea being discussed here in California. It may have passed in this state. I don't recall.

But the point is, this is not a step forward. It is a slap in the face. This kind of change basically says, "well, it's okay if you only had a little gay trist in college, but heaven forbid you be actually GAY!"

Either keep the ban entirely or lift it entirely. This is just insulting,

[Travis A]

lift the ban and do your job if you don't test the blood before giving it out then you are stupid!

[Leftatalbuquerqu e]

meanwhile, str8 women have sex with men frequently...

[equalityboy81]

Don't they test the blood?! Straight people get diseases too!

[RalphB]

Since I haven't given blood since they first banned it, years ago, I will just keep on not giving, unless it is to a friend or relative who needs and wants it. Otherwise, they can shove it.

[RalphB]

By the way, my spouse and I have been monogamus for over 30 years, and neither of us is positive.

[equalityboy81]

RalphB wrote:

Since I haven't given blood since they first banned it, years ago, I will just keep on not giving, unless it is to a friend or relative who needs and wants it. Otherwise, they can shove it.

The big question is would a known gay person be allowed to donate blood to save the life of a relative or friend.

[WoodieSD]

Okay, so how many gay men haven't had sex with another man in the last five years? What about those in monogamous relationships for five years? This looks more like window dressing than a genunine improvement.

[Rick in Kansas]

A five year ban is no more logically defensible than the current lifetime ban. There is a logical solution to this which addresses any and all concerns, simply require ALL potential donors to submit proof of testing and status having been conducted within the last 90 days then asking them the following questions:

Within 90 days prior to your last test and at any point after:

1)Can you attest to the testing and status of any and all sexual partners, regardless of sex and whether the sex was protected or unprotected?(if no, please come back after your next test and can answer yes to this question)

2)Have you or your sexual partner(s) engaged in intravenous use of drugs not prescribed to you?(if yes, please come back after your next test and can answer no to this question)

3)Have you or your sexual partner(s) traveled to any nation where blood borne illnesses are known to be prevalent?(if yes, please come back after your next test and can answer no to this question)

4)Have you or your sexual partner(s) had a blood transfusion, treatment with blood based products or surgery (including dental)?(if yes, please come back after your next test and can answer no to this question)

5)Have you or your sexual partner(s) been exposed to the blood or any other bodily fluids, of anyone whom you can't attest to their testing and status?(If yes, please come back after your next test and can answer no to this question)

All that is really needed is proof of recent testing with each and every donation and the necessary truthful answer to five common sense questions in order to allow anyone to donate who can and to exclude those who shouldn't.

[Travis A]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

A five year ban is no more logically defensible than the current lifetime ban. There is a logical solution to this which addresses any and all concerns, simply require ALL potential donors to submit proof of testing and status having been conducted within the last 90 days then asking them the following questions:
Within 90 days prior to your last test and at any point after:
1)Can you attest to the testing and status of any and all sexual partners, regardless of sex and whether the sex was protected or unprotected?(if no, please come back after your next test and can answer yes to this question)
2)Have you or your sexual partner(s) engaged in intravenous use of drugs not prescribed to you?(if yes, please come back after your next test and can answer no to this question)
3)Have you or your sexual partner(s) traveled to any nation where blood borne illnesses are known to be prevalent?(if yes, please come back after your next test and can answer no to this question)
4)Have you or your sexual partner(s) had a blood transfusion, treatment with blood based products or surgery (including dental)?(if yes, please come back after your next test and can answer no to this question)
5)Have you or your sexual partner(s) been exposed to the blood or any other bodily fluids, of anyone whom you can't attest to their testing and status?(If yes, please come back after your next test and can answer no to this question)
All that is really needed is proof of recent testing with each and every donation and the necessary truthful answer to five common sense questions in order to allow anyone to donate who can and to exclude those who shouldn't.

or they could just test the blood themselves before giving it to people?which they should do anyway??

[Rick in Kansas]

Travis A wrote:

<quoted text>
or they could just test the blood themselves before giving it to people?which they should do anyway??

They do test donations, but the test is not as accurate the closer to transmission and can lead to a window of as long as three months when the virus can be transmitted but still be undetected by the test. There are tests which detect the virus much faster, but extremely cost prohibitive to be using to test the blood supply.

[Travis A]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>They do test donations, but the test is not as accurate the closer to transmission and can lead to a window of as long as three months when the virus can be transmitted but still be undetected by the test. There are tests which detect the virus much faster, but extremely cost prohibitive to be using to test the blood supply.

so why not just store the blood for three months to be sure??

[equalityboy81]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>They do test donations, but the test is not as accurate the closer to transmission and can lead to a window of as long as three months when the virus can be transmitted but still be undetected by the test. There are tests which detect the virus much faster, but extremely cost prohibitive to be using to test the blood supply.

Costs or no costs the blood should be tested numerous times for safety. Straight people have diseases too and their blood should be treated in the same manner as gays'.

[Rick in Kansas]

Travis A wrote:

<quoted text>
so why not just store the blood for three months to be sure??

I wish it worked that way, but the reality is that virus is transmittable even at very low levels in the bloodstream and it's that low level in the bloodstream that the test they use on blood donations is unable to detect. If there is an undetectable level of virus on the day the blood is donated, it will still be at the same undetectable level three months later, because it's not going to replicate itself in cold storage.

[Travis A]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>I wish it worked that way, but the reality is that virus is transmittable even at very low levels in the bloodstream and it's that low level in the bloodstream that the test they use on blood donations is unable to detect. If there is an undetectable level of virus on the day the blood is donated, it will still be at the same undetectable level three months later, because it's not going to replicate itself in cold storage.

i see but then the same issue would occur with a hetero persons blood to so why discriminate against gays?..what happens if you lie and say you are straight? could you be arrested?

[Rick in Kansas]

equalityboy81 wrote:

<quoted text>
Costs or no costs the blood should be tested numerous times for safety. Straight people have diseases too and their blood should be treated in the same manner as gays'.

All blood is routinely screened not only for anti-bodies to HIV1 and HIV2, but seven other blood borne infectious agents plus additional tests for blood used for blood products and while the test they do currently, does in their opinion close the infectious detection window considerably (to just over two weeks in most cases), the CDC still sticks to the 90 day window for all infections to be detectable. While tests do exist which close the infectious window to about three days, their use would make the cost of blood and blood products prohibitively expensive. Since the testing that the Red Cross and others do is so effective, in this country at least, they've been supporting a complete end to the ban for the last two years, but the FDA under Bush thwarted their proposal last year.

[RalphB]

equalityboy81 wrote:

<quoted text>
The big question is would a known gay person be allowed to donate blood to save the life of a relative or friend.

I have given blood for relatives twice in the past 10 years, and both they and their families know I am gay. I wasn't asked by the hospital about my sexual orientation, but I have had operations in the same hospital in the past, and their records on me do show that I am gay.